AB v A Chief Constable (Rev 1) [2014] EWHC 1965 (QB) (16 June 2014)

AB v A Chief Constable (Rev 1) [2014] EWHC 1965 (QB) (16 June 2014)

The Chief Constable was not under a private law duty of care to send a second reference because the template reference included a clear disclaimer and did not assume responsibility. However, the Chief Constable was under a public law duty of honesty and integrity, informed by statutory and ethical standards, which required him not to give a misleading reference. Nevertheless, this public law duty was subject to compliance with data protection law and the claimant's legitimate expectations.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1965
Parties
Claimant: AB; Defendant: A Chief Constable
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 June 2014
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Employer References, Duty of Care in References, Police Disciplinary Proceedings, Data Protection and Privacy, Legitimate Expectation, Public Law Duties of Police, Misrepresentation in References
Employment Law Public Law Police Law Data Protection Employer References Duty of Care in References Police Disciplinary Proceedings Data Protection and Privacy +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Claimant

A Chief Constable

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Chief Constable was under a legal duty (in private or public law) to send a second, more detailed reference to the Regulatory Body disclosing the claimant's disciplinary and sickness record
  2. 2 Whether sending such a reference would breach data protection principles or the claimant's legitimate expectations

Ratio Decidendi

The Chief Constable was not under a private law duty of care to send a second reference because the template reference included a clear disclaimer and did not assume responsibility. However, the Chief Constable was under a public law duty of honesty and integrity, informed by statutory and ethical standards, which required him not to give a misleading reference. Nevertheless, this public law duty was subject to compliance with data protection law and the claimant's legitimate expectations.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No injunction granted against sending the second reference
  • Chief Constable not required to send the second reference due to data protection and legitimate expectation barriers